Trans-Texas Corridor Part of Larger Plan

[TheNiche]

About the topic - there's nothing fundamentally wrong with building highways. The problem lies in ignoring the urgent needs of cities for infrastructure upgrades, by simply bypassing them altogether. I remember that Interstate 35 is wider in Georgetown and New Braunfels than in Austin, for example.

Austin itself is a case study in poor mobility planning. There, the NIMBYs and BANANAs rule all. Probably not the best place from which to draw an example of a statewide or nationwide transportation problem.

[CDeb]

The problem lies in ignoring the urgent needs of cities for infrastructure upgrades, by simply bypassing them altogether. I remember that Interstate 35 is wider in Georgetown and New Braunfels than in Austin, for example.

Removing demand from an urban freeway essentially has the same impact as adding supply.

Regardless, Austin has no one to blame but themselves for their mobility issues.

[TheNiche]

Removing demand from an urban freeway essentially has the same impact as adding supply.

Regardless, Austin has no one to blame but themselves for their mobility issues.

How are they removing demand?

[CDeb]

How are they removing demand?

Removing is a bad word. How about relocating?

[TheNiche]

Removing is a bad word. How about relocating?

How are they relocating demand?

[CDeb]

How are they relocating demand?

Through vehicles can have the option of bypassing an urban area, thus relocating the demand from the urban freeway to a (relatively) rural one.

[TheNiche]

Through vehicles can have the option of bypassing an urban area, thus relocating the demand from the urban freeway to a (relatively) rural one.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for spelling it out for me.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure how effective the toll bypass is going to be at eliminating urban congestion. Are they going to force tractor trailers to take it?

[urban909]

So, why would anyone want a unified N. America? Honestly, why should anyone feel threatened by China?

They're growing and slowly becoming more prosperous. Good for them.

that actually was suppost to be "france, etc haven't lost their identity". didn't proofread. anyways, i don't have a problem with china growing economically or even militarily. they are going to be a very dominant power in the region. however, they way they handle business, like where and who they buy their oil from, lack of environmental actions/enforcement, and the horrible conditions of their own workforce concerns me. now as a broader perspective, i believe some in the political arena here in the US feel threatened. the reason i said that a unified N. America is being created would be why the EU was created. again, just an thought or theory, nothing more...

[CDeb]

Frankly, though, I'm not sure how effective the toll bypass is going to be at eliminating urban congestion. Are they going to force tractor trailers to take it?

I don't think it'll be a pancea, but in the case of I-35 in Austin, I believe they have few otions. The right-of-way constraints there are pretty brutal.

From what I've heard, they aren't going to force trucks to take it, but try to come up with ways to offset some of the toll cost in order to entice them to use it (gasoline discounts at stations along the toll road is one that was being discussed, but I don't know how seriously). Removing a significant portion of the trucks from I-35 isn't a cure-all, but it'll have some impact. A truck can take the physical space of three passenger vehicles and has much worse performance characteristics. They count as anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 passenger cars in traffic analyses.

[desirous]

I don't think it'll be a pancea, but in the case of I-35 in Austin, I believe they have few otions. The right-of-way constraints there are pretty brutal.

From what I've heard, they aren't going to force trucks to take it, but try to come up with ways to offset some of the toll cost in order to entice them to use it (gasoline discounts at stations along the toll road is one that was being discussed, but I don't know how seriously). Removing a significant portion of the trucks from I-35 isn't a cure-all, but it'll have some impact. A truck can take the physical space of three passenger vehicles and has much worse performance characteristics. They count as anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 passenger cars in traffic analyses.

One thing they could do is to build the freeway as a three-level structure, with the lower freeway deck in a trench, frontage roads cantilevered over it (e.g., Central Expy in Dallas), and an upper deck above both of them. I could picture 6 lower deck lanes, 6 frontage road lanes, and 10 upper deck lanes. That's the theoretical limit, in my opinion, as far as engineering goes.

Removing trucks, even all of them, is not enough. I-35 is taking on over 250,000 vehicles per day, and it would be even more crowded if it had the ability to handle more cars. Imagine if the Southwest Freeway is still 6 lanes, and there you have it.

[CDeb]

Removing trucks, even all of them, is not enough.

I agree, but it'll have an impact, and removing trucks isn't the only goal.

[TheNiche]

that actually was suppost to be "france, etc haven't lost their identity". didn't proofread. anyways, i don't have a problem with china growing economically or even militarily. they are going to be a very dominant power in the region. however, they way they handle business, like where and who they buy their oil from, lack of environmental actions/enforcement, and the horrible conditions of their own workforce concerns me. now as a broader perspective, i believe some in the political arena here in the US feel threatened. the reason i said that a unified N. America is being created would be why the EU was created. again, just an thought or theory, nothing more...

It doesn't matter who they buy oil from. It is a global market. All that matters is how much they and everyone else demands and at what price. They also aren't really at a point where it makes sense for them to try and clean up their environment. First, they should tend to the basic needs of their people, which as you acknowledge, is still a challenge. That's why they were exempted from Kyoto.

There really isn't much advantage to a unified N. America the way that there was for a unified Europe. Big nations don't have so much of a problem with currency exchange and disimilar regulation and accounting, the way that all those small European countries did. International treaties and the WTO can accomplish as much as needs to be.

The big problem with unification is that less stable countries exert negative and volatile influences on more stable countries. Where currencies are shared, there is a strong incentive for more stable nations to pull out when things get dicey, whereas trade agreements like the U.S. has with various countries tend to be more flexible and provide better terms for us.

[musicman]

Removing is a bad word. How about relocating?

spoken like a true govt employee

[CDeb]

spoken like a true govt employee

Dude, that's harsh!

[RedScare]

It doesn't matter who they buy oil from. It is a global market. All that matters is how much they and everyone else demands and at what price.

Though it may be a global market in theory, the reality is that most of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies, so the oil markets are very political. China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe. These are clearly political manuevers, not free market ones. And political moves can have a far more disastrous effect than market ones.

This article just appeared in the Chron yesterday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

[Pumapayam]

China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

I knew the Chinese government was evil, them and their Chery vehicles!

[TheNiche]

Though it may be a global market in theory, the reality is that most of the world's oil is controlled by national oil companies, so the oil markets are very political. China, for instance, has been busy locking up oil agreements with countries that are either enemies of the US or in strained relationships, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Russia, in an effort to flex it's muscle last year, temporarily cut off the natural gas supply to parts of Europe. These are clearly political manuevers, not free market ones. And political moves can have a far more disastrous effect than market ones.

This article just appeared in the Chron yesterday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/4591682.html

Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Say China decides to buy Russian oil exclusively (which is something of a misnomer anyway because even though the Chinese government is a huge consumer of oil, there are now independent Chinese firms that can buy oil from whatever is the lowest-cost supplier, but fortunatley, that little clarification has basically no impact on the point I'm about to make). Rather than buy from multiple suppliers, they're now buying from a single consolidated supplier. They aren't buying any more than they otherwise would have, just that they're buying more Russian and less of everyone else's. The supply/demand balance is maintained, effectively without change, from one moment to the next. And if China hadn't bought Russian oil, that doesn't mean that Russia wouldn't sell it to other countries because unilateral embargoes against the world only hurt the exporting country. Now assume that the price has been fixed, and that Russia is trying to develop some kind of a relationship with China by providing them with low-cost oil. China, buying at a price lower than the global market, is going to buy as much as they can in excess of their need and resell it on the global market, engaging in arbitrage. Net effect on price of oil to the U.S. is zero.

But oil is different from natural gas. Oil has a global market, whereas natural gas is harder to transport across oceans. As a result, almost all of the U.S. supply of natural gas is produced in North America. Russia can screw with (parts of) Europe all it likes. I could care less.

Now, as far as that Chronicle article is concerned, I agree with the comments that were voiced...but they are in no way relevant to the point that I brought up and that you have attempted to dispute.

[nmainguy]

Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Say China decides to buy Russian oil exclusively (which is something of a misnomer anyway because even though the Chinese government is a huge consumer of oil, there are now independent Chinese firms that can buy oil from whatever is the lowest-cost supplier, but fortunatley, that little clarification has basically no impact on the point I'm about to make). Rather than buy from multiple suppliers, they're now buying from a single consolidated supplier. They aren't buying any more than they otherwise would have, just that they're buying more Russian and less of everyone else's. The supply/demand balance is maintained, effectively without change, from one moment to the next. And if China hadn't bought Russian oil, that doesn't mean that Russia wouldn't sell it to other countries because unilateral embargoes against the world only hurt the exporting country. Now assume that the price has been fixed, and that Russia is trying to develop some kind of a relationship with China by providing them with low-cost oil. China, buying at a price lower than the global market, is going to buy as much as they can in excess of their need and resell it on the global market, engaging in arbitrage. Net effect on price of oil to the U.S. is zero.

Now, as far as that Chronicle article is concerned, I agree with the comments that were voiced...but they are in no way relevant to the point that I brought up and that you have attempted to dispute.

So you make up a fantasy scenario to prop up your argument...priceless.

The Pedant has spoken!!!!

...wordy, irrelevant reply in 3-2-1...

[TheNiche]

So you make up a fantasy scenario to prop up your argument...priceless.

The Pedant has spoken!!!!

...wordy, irrelevant reply in 3-2-1...

I provided two brief examples to support my theory. Is that a problem? I noticed that you didn't attempt a rebuttal.

[RedScare]

Yeah, well see, I've got a little secret that I'll share with you: reporters aren't economists.

Yes, only the mighty Niche can explain economics.

National oil companies control 80 percent of the world's oil. They have many motives, not the least of which is ensuring that they have enough oil for their own needs, as well as buying friends. In a free market, only price dictates the flow of oil. Just like the OPEC cartel that you despise, nationalized oil distorts the free market. Assuming that naltional oil companies put profits above political considerations is a recipe for disaster. Nationalized oil and political instability in oil producing nations is a far bigger threat to the oil supply than peak oil. Ironically, Iraq is a great example. With the 4th largest reserve, it is procing a third less oil than before the US "liberated" them. No amount of money can get the oil out of the ground, since the insurgents sabotage the pipes as quickly as they repair them.

I would have thought even you would understand that.

[TheNiche]

Yes, only the mighty Niche can explain economics.

National oil companies control 80 percent of the world's oil. They have many motives, not the least of which is ensuring that they have enough oil for their own needs, as well as buying friends. In a free market, only price dictates the flow of oil. Just like the OPEC cartel that you despise, nationalized oil distorts the free market. Assuming that naltional oil companies put profits above political considerations is a recipe for disaster. Nationalized oil and political instability in oil producing nations is a far bigger threat to the oil supply than peak oil. Ironically, Iraq is a great example. With the 4th largest reserve, it is procing a third less oil than before the US "liberated" them. No amount of money can get the oil out of the ground, since the insurgents sabotage the pipes as quickly as they repair them.

I would have thought even you would understand that.

^^^The above is correct but, I will repeat myself from the last paragraph of my first response to you:

Now, as far as that Chronicle article is concerned, I agree with the comments that were voiced...but they are in no way relevant to the point that I brought up and that you have attempted to dispute.

[nmainguy]

I provided two brief examples to support my theory. Is that a problem? I noticed that you didn't attempt a rebuttal.

Rebut what? Your fantasy scenario or the fact you are negligent in the subject of oil/gas economics and politics? I think this statement by you says it all regarding your comprehension of the topic:

Russia can screw with (parts of) Europe all it likes. I could care less.

WOW! What an enlightened view! Did you get that from Limbaugh or Hannity or are you just blowing off a huge chunk of the "global market?"

[Frank]

Suprised I haven't seen much if any talk on this subject. What is everones view?

http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm

http://www.texastollparty.com/index.php?direct=1

http://corridornews.blogspot.com/

[MaxConcrete]

The proposed TTC-69 is still in the route determination phase. Most likely TTC-69 will not have a major impact on the Houston area. If it is ever built (and that's a big if), it will either use existing routes through Houston or possibly the planned Grand Parkway, or it will have a very distant bypass around Houston. Since the impact in Houston will be minimal, no one seems to be getting too excited or upset. Of course, there are plenty of upset people elsewhere where the impact will be greater.

I think we first need to see what happens with TTC-35. If it doesn't move foward, most likely TTC-69 is dead also.

[TheNiche]

Rebut what? Your fantasy scenario or the fact you are negligent in the subject of oil/gas economics and politics? I think this statement by you says it all regarding your comprehension of the topic:

Here again, you insult me, but fail to provide any supportive evidence. Not even theoretical examples...

WOW! What an enlightened view! Did you get that from Limbaugh or Hannity or are you just blowing off a huge chunk of the "global market?"

The key dispute is between Russia and the Ukraine. The collateral impacts are mostly felt in Eastern Europe, which is poorer and doesn't represent a very large market in the grand scheme of things. That petty conflict does not concern me greatly, especially since the U.S. doesn't import almost any natural gas from that region and since our market for exports isn't all that significant either.

...meanwhile, Russia is presently in talks with Belgian officials to invest in some major infrastructure serving Western Europe with greater efficiency.

[urban909]

Here again, you insult me, but fail to provide any supportive evidence. Not even theoretical examples...

The key dispute is between Russia and the Ukraine. The collateral impacts are mostly felt in Eastern Europe, which is poorer and doesn't represent a very large market in the grand scheme of things. That petty conflict does not concern me greatly, especially since the U.S. doesn't import almost any natural gas from that region and since our market for exports isn't all that significant either.

as far as Russia goes, i believe the key dispute and main problem is their grip on Georgia, which if i think is mostly oil, and on some of the other minor/former U.S.S.R states. sure they have a problem with the Ukraine, as that country decided or is leaning to join with the EU rather than the CIS...but then again Russia still has the wonderful country of Belarus as part of the CIS as well as Armenia, Moldova, Azerbijan,etc . with the exception of Belarus, most want or are joining the EU. anyways, Russia still has the largest reserve of natural gas, many of which have not been tapped into. so the concern would be, in my opinion, that since they are constructing one of the largest natural gas facilities in the world in eastern Russia, that the export trade will continue to rise and they can sell to whomever they want. not just small eastern european countries. as far as i remember, and this is from a year or two ago, the united states only exports to three countries; Mexico, Japan and Canada. so i don't believe it will continue to stay a petty conflict. however, the US is on the rise in export over the last 5-10 years, especially with the building of more LNG ships. underestimating Russia can be a tight rope of a walk. as a side note the US should and must increase cooperation with Russia, not condemn them on certain actions taken by their government, especially with this "war on terror"

but back to topic, anyone else have a theory about the N.A.U???

[MiDTOWNeR]

It is the poorest and most undeveloped third world countries that pose the greatest military risks because 1) they don't have much to lose, and 2) the governments are weak or inherently unstable with few checks on power.

Dont forget a possible #3) The rhetoric and threats from the poorest third world countires rallies it's people to further support their governments in turn allowing their governments to do whatever they want. Wait, that happens here. We just sit here and talk about how we(as people) should do more to keep our government in check and dont. oh well. build the dang road and let the jobs drive south & north.

[desirous]

Dont forget a possible #3) The rhetoric and threats from the poorest third world countires rallies it's people to further support their governments in turn allowing their governments to do whatever they want. Wait, that happens here. We just sit here and talk about how we(as people) should do more to keep our government in check and dont. oh well. build the dang road and let the jobs drive south & north.

What's with the whole "jobs driving" deal? We have a service economy, and there is nothing wrong with that. Britain does too, and so do most developed nations. It's nothing to be ashamed of. The reason Americans panic about outsourcing is the result of liberal ballyhooing, an attempt by a very small minority of indignant workers to hold the entire American people hostage. If they have their way, we'd all be paying a dollar for a roll of toilet paper just so some podunk town in Ohio can employ a couple hundred workers making toilet paper. We as a people shouldn't look backward and protect the past, but rather look forward and prepare to lead the future generation. Communications, biotechnology, robotics, global finance, there are plenty of strengths we can exploit.

[Subdude]

Time to get back on topic folks.

There's a politics topic area for those who wish to go there.

[desirous]

Time to get back on topic folks.

There's a politics topic area for those who wish to go there.

... in other words, there is nothing inherently wrong with the TTC project, at least from the free trade perspective. Whether it's an acceptable use of funds, relative to other spending items, is up for grabs.